Posted on 02/04/2004 12:00:19 PM PST by HenryLeeII
We Worship Jefferson, But We Have Become Hamilton's America
EVERYBODY WHO IS anybody was there -- at least among those 750 or so Americans who adore Alexander Hamilton. Representatives of the Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr factions also turned out in force.
Two hundred years ago this summer, Hamilton died from a single bullet fired by Burr, then America's vice president, in a duel in Weehawken, N.J. Hamilton's early death, at the age of 47, denied him the opportunity -- or aggravation -- of watching America become a Hamiltonian nation while worshipping the gospel according to Thomas Jefferson.
Now, some Hamiltonians have decided to try to elevate their candidate to the pantheon of great early Americans. Last weekend, scholars, descendents and admirers of Hamilton gathered at the New-York Historical Society in Manhattan to kick off their campaign and sing the praises of America's first treasury secretary, who created the blueprint for America's future as a mighty commercial, political and military power.
The conference was sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
But the overflow crowd also had to grapple with the unfortunate fact that many Americans have negative impressions of Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps Ezra Pound expressed their feelings most poetically when he described Hamilton as "the Prime snot in ALL American history."
YET, AS ONE HAMILTON acolyte, Edward Hochman, a Paterson, N.J., lawyer, asked the assembled experts: If Hamilton's vision of America "won" in the long run, "why do we love Jefferson?"
"Because," historian John Steele Gordon responded dryly, "most intellectuals love Jefferson and hate markets, and it's mostly intellectuals who write books."
Even Hamilton's detractors, including members of the Aaron Burr Association, concede that he was a brilliant administrator, who understood financial systems better than anyone else in the country. He laid the groundwork for the nation's banks, commerce and manufacturing, and was rewarded by being pictured on the $10 bill. "We can pay off his debts in 15 years," Thomas Jefferson lamented, "but we can never get rid of his financial system."
Jefferson's vision of America was the opposite of Hamilton's. Jefferson saw America as a loose confederation of agricultural states, while Hamilton envisioned a strong federal government guiding a transition to an urban, industrial nation. He is often called the "father of American capitalism" and the "patron saint of Wall Street."
The Hamiltonians have much historical prejudice to overcome. The real Hamilton was a difficult man, to put it mildly. He was dictatorial, imperious and never understood when to keep his mouth shut. "He set his foot contemptuously to work the treadles of slower minds," wrote an American historian, James Schouler, in 1880.
In the turbulent years of America's political birth, naked ambition for power was considered unseemly, except in the military. After the war, Hamilton, a courageous and skillful soldier, grabbed power aggressively and ruthlessly, indifferent to the trail of enemies he left behind. As a political theorist, he was regarded as a plutocrat and monarchist, partly because he favored a presidency with a life term.
JOHN ADAMS, America's second president, dismissed Hamilton as "the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar" and "the Creole" (Hamilton was born in the West Indies, and his parents never married). George Mason, the Virginia statesman, said Hamilton and his machinations did "us more injury than Great Britain and all her fleets and armies."
"Sure, he made mistakes," concedes Doug Hamilton, a Columbus, Ohio, salesman for IBM, who calculates he is Hamilton's fifth great-grandson. "He was only human. But family is family."
Hamilton had at least one, and probably several, adulterous affairs (Martha Washington named her randy tomcat "Hamilton"). He was also a social snob and dandy. Hamilton, wrote Frederick Scott Oliver in his 1920 biography, "despised . . . people like Jefferson, who dressed ostentatiously in homespun." He "belonged to an age of silk stockings and handsome shoe buckles."
Historians find Hamilton something of a cipher. He didn't have the opportunity, as Adams and Jefferson did in their long retirements, to "spin, if not outright alter, the public record," noted Stephen Knott, author of "Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth."
Joanne Freeman, Yale history professor and editor of a collection of Hamilton's writings, agreed that "there are huge voids in our knowledge of him." Consequently, his legacy has been claimed by various political interests. Among his illustrious admirers are George Washington, Jefferson Davis, Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding and the French statesman Talleyrand.
At the 1932 Democratic convention, however, Franklin Roosevelt blamed "disciples of Alexander Hamilton" for the Great Depression.
By the time of Hamilton's death, he had dropped out of public life and returned to his law practice. Even so, wrote Frederick Oliver, "the world mourned him with a fervor that is remarkable, considering the speed with which it proceeded to forget him."
Distortions? Not at all:
1) have you informed these folks that you consider James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to have been "treasonous?"
The silence which enveloped the treasonous [Kentucky & Virginia] Resolutions [authored by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison, respectively] after there cowardly anonymous proclamation amply shows the lack of agreement with their destructive tendency.
167 posted on 02/05/2004 7:51:13 AM MST by justshutupandtakeit
2) that you consider Mr. Jefferson "scum?"
[Hamilton] had no tendencies toward monarchism or aristocracy those were rank lies spread by the Jefferson/Callender/Bache/Beckley stream of protoRAT scum.
112 posted on 01/25/2004 12:24:55 AM MST by justshutupandtakeit
3) and that you believe it would be 'constitutional' for a D@mocrat Congress to appoint Hillary Clinton 'Queen of the United States?'
So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary Queen for Life, and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?
1,885 posted on 12/12/2003 3:21:21 PM MST by Who is John Galt?
Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.
1,898 posted on 12/12/2003 11:23:53 PM MST by justshutupandtakeit
(Now it may be news to you, sport, but the United States Constitution makes no provision for the establishment of a Clinton monarchy with or without high court approval... ;>)
The way you shoot off your mouth, you really should be prepared to deal with the consequences...
;>)
We lost it quite a bit before then.
Several years ago I read an essay stating that we really werent all that different from the French because we had experienced 4 republics. This was a bit different from Yale historian Bruce Ackermans 3 republics based on constitutional interpretation, and different again from Jude Wanniskis 4 republics. (Im still trying to find that essay.) Ill try to sum the essay quickly and forego my usual pedantic writing style.
The First Republic functioned under the Articles of Confederation but failed after only a decade, killed off by trade wars between the states. There was no common currency. Things fell apart.
The Second Republic was founded by Hamilton and Madison and functioned under the Constitution. During the ratification debates, anti-Federalists (adherents of the First Republic) saw the Constitutional Convention as treason and a betrayal of 1776. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers to get the gist of the argument.
The Federalist impulses of Washington and Hamilton were derailed by Jackson who went to a full states right regimen. Jacksons impact was so great that to restore Hamiltonian governance required cracking the Union and fighting a war. Things fell apart.
The Third Republic was founded by Lincoln and functioned under a greatly amended version of the Constitution. It was a purely Hamiltonian construct, created when Lincoln refused the states what they felt was the ultimate states right: To leave peacefully. Big Business ran the country.
During the Second Republic, the Jeffersonian impulse was exercised via states rights and a weak federal government, but the Civil War and the amended Constitution had killed that off. As a result, during the Third Republic the Jeffersonian impulse (via the Progressive Movement) favored Big Government protecting the people from Big Business, i.e. Jeffersonian ends achieved through Hamiltonian means. Theodore Roosevelt made the first strides in this direction. Today we call it compassionate conservatism.
A business panic related to easy credit from the Federal Reserve led to a depression blamed on Big Business. Things fell apart.
The Fourth Republic was created by Franklin Roosevelt and functioned under Executive Orders. The Constitution meant what hired judges said it meant, and Earl Warren had as much power as the president. This republic was not so much Democratic Socialism as Government Capitalism with a large bureaucracy running the country and the people insulated from ruling themselves. Presidents and Congresses came and went, but the courts and bureaucracy continued on.
Technically speaking, the Jeffersonian republic ended when Lincoln decided to go Hamiltonian and won the argument in 1865. FDR created a semi-socialist version of the Jeffersonian republic, but its getting to expensive to maintain. Eventually things will fall apart but when?
You can call our money " fiat ", till the cows come home and pine for the days when gold and silver was used, but what you ignore, is that metal coinage has been debased and tampered with, from ancient Roman times on ward.
Do you know WHY the slang term " two bits " came about ? It's because gold doubloons were hacked at, and " two bits " of it, were used, when a smaller price/coinage was needed. They didn't use scale, it wasn't accurate at all, and so much for your idea that gold or silver is better than paper money.
Crooks used to " shave " the edges of coins. Coins are farm easier to damage than paper money.
Money, whatever form it take, from gold to silver, to salt, to pepper, to cowrie shells, to beads, is only worth what others agree it is!
Remember, I'm only summarizing an essay I read that I can't find anymore.
Sorry, but Im interested in documented, historical facts not your ignorant beliefs...
And the actions of Jefferson/Beckley/Callender/Bache against the Washington administration were the actions of scum.
Congratulations! You believe that the author of the Declaration of Independence was scum. How nice! (And thanks for proving my point... ;>)
Only the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional not justshutupandtakeit nor Who is John Galt. Like it or not.
Sorry, sport, but by your standard, a D@mocrat Congress could pass a law requiring the execution of every Republican in the country, and you would claim it was constitutional by default. No offense intended, but youre a complete idiot...
Do you have anything to add to this discussion or are you just limiting yourself to violating the forum rules?
Ouch! Which rule do you believe I violated? The mysterious & invisible rule against quoting posts? (I can provide links if you need them - or is that 'against the rules,' too? ;>)
I am always ready to deal with consequences of my actions though I do prefer dealing with honest men.
ROTFLMAO! Actually, it would appear that you prefer "dealing with" anyone you can intimidate with your ignorant, obnoxious bluster.
Better luck next time...
;>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.